Journal of Postgraduate Medicine
 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus & ISI's SCI  
Users online: 2931  
Home | Subscribe | Feedback | Login 
About Latest Articles Back-Issues Articlesmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Etcetera Contact
 ::  Similar in PUBMED
 ::  Search Pubmed for
 ::  Search in Google Scholar for
 ::Related articles
 ::  Article in PDF (632 KB)
 ::  Citation Manager
 ::  Access Statistics
 ::  Reader Comments
 ::  Email Alert *
 ::  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free) 

  IN THIS Article
 ::  Abstract
 :: Introduction
 ::  Materials and Me...
 :: Results
 :: Discussion
 ::  References
 ::  Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded66    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 34    

Recommend this journal


  Table of Contents     
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 60  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 183-186

Understanding your student: Using the VARK model

Department of Anatomy, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Submission31-Jan-2014
Date of Decision25-Mar-2014
Date of Acceptance07-Apr-2014
Date of Web Publication13-May-2014

Correspondence Address:
Dr. I J Prithishkumar
Department of Anatomy, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0022-3859.132337

Rights and Permissions

 :: Abstract 

Background: Students have different preferences in the assimilation and processing of information. The VARK learning style model introduced by Fleming includes a questionnaire that identifies a person's sensory modality preference in learning. This model classifies students into four different learning modes; visual (V), aural (A), read/write (R), and kinesthetic (K). Materials and Methods: The 16-point multiple choice VARK questionnaire version 7.1 was distributed to first year undergraduate medical students after obtaining permission for use.Results: Seventy-nine students (86.8%) were multimodal in their learning preference, and 12 students (13.8%) were unimodal. The highest unimodal preference was K-7.7%. Surprisingly, there were no visual unimodal learners. The commonest learning preference was the bimodal category, of which the highest percentage was seen in the AK (33%) and AR (16.5%) category. The most common trimodal preference was ARK (8.9%). The total individual scores in each category were V-371, A-588, R/W-432, and K-581; auditory and kinesthetic being the highest preference. Visual mode had the lowest overall score. There was no significant difference in preference between the sexes. Conclusion: Students possess a wide diversity in learning preferences. This necessitates teachers to effectively deliver according to the needs of the student. Multiple modalities of information presentation are necessary to keep the attention and motivation of our students requiring a shift from the traditional large-group teacher-centric lecture method to an interactive, student-centric multimodal approach.

Keywords: Learning preferences, learning styles, VARK

How to cite this article:
Prithishkumar I J, Michael S A. Understanding your student: Using the VARK model. J Postgrad Med 2014;60:183-6

How to cite this URL:
Prithishkumar I J, Michael S A. Understanding your student: Using the VARK model. J Postgrad Med [serial online] 2014 [cited 2023 Jun 7];60:183-6. Available from:

 :: Introduction Top

The background of the student population in any university is very diverse. This includes varied socio-economic background, wide ranging ages of students, varied cultural background, prior educational experiences, levels of competency and preparedness, and preferred learning strategies. [1] Effective teaching in such a set up can be difficult and challenging. Teaching is a process of knowledge presentation while learning is often multifactorial and depends on the mindset of each student. [2] The multiple factors that play an effective role in the learning process include: [3]

  1. Student's interest in the topic being taught,
  2. Student's motivation to the subject: One of the roles of a teacher is to establish and maintain motivation in a student. Two types of motivation have been described, namely intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is a stimulation born from within oneself without inducement or coercion from others, while extrinsic motivation is a stimulation often influenced externally by others.
  3. Individual principle: Every student has different levels of competency and mastery, each of them having their own diverse ways of understanding and remembering the subject. [2]
  4. Active student participation and involvement in the teaching-learning process is crucial to effective learning.
  5. Affective domain of the student: Learning also depends on one's personality and includes factors such as curiosity, prior awareness of the subject, emotional status of the individual, boredom, motivation, concern, and an incentive to study, if any, [2] and
  6. Preferred learning styles: Students have different learning styles and these affect how they learn. An 'Individual learning style' refers to a 'style or learning preference or preferred strategy' used by the student in the process of learning and assimilation of information.

Learning style inventories are information-processing models that aim to identify a student's preferred intellectual approach in assimilating and processing information. [4] These include models described by various educationists such as Dunn and Dunn, Felder-Silverman, Salmes, Honey and Murnford, Kolb and VARK. [3] The VARK learning style model was introduced by Neil Fleming in 2006. [5] VARK is an acronym, which stands for visual, aural, read/write, and kinesthetic preference modalities. This learning style classifies students into four different learning modes, each mode based on different preferred senses used in information gathering namely visual (V), aural (A), read/write (R), and kinesthetic (K). The VARK© inventory includes a questionnaire that identifies a person's sensory modality preference. The VARK model has been validated by Dr. Walter Leite from the Research and Evaluation Methodology program at the University of Florida. [6] Visual learners (V) learn by looking at image intense figures, graphics, and videos. They like to use symbolic tools such as arrows, flowcharts, graphs, models, and hierarchies, which represent printed information. They teach concepts to others by drawing an image orpicture. [7] Aural learners (A) give particular attention to words delivered by teachers. [2] They prefer to listen than taking down detailed lecture notes; they like discussions and seminars and like listening to mp3 recordings of lecturers. [3] Aural learners can remember information through loud reading or even low volume mouthing when reading. [8] Read/Write learners (R) read printed texts to gain information.They like lecture notes, handouts, and text books. Besides, they are keen note-takers. [2] Kinesthetic learners (K) prefer hands on experience, practical application, use of models, and real life experience. They like experiential learning and prefer to apply touch,movement, and interaction to their learning environment. [2] They dislike merely listening even in an image intense environment; typically kinesthetic students are passive in the classroom setting. The present study was carried out with the objectives of determining the preferred learning style of first year undergraduate medical students using the VARK questionnaire and to compare learning preferences between sexes.

 :: Materials and Methods Top

Ethics: The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board and written, informed consent was obtained from all participants. Complete anonymity was maintained during data collection; only the sex of the student had to be indicated

Instrument: The 16 multiple choice VARK questionnaire version 7.1 [Copyright (2006) held by Neil D. Fleming, Christchurch, New Zealand and Charles C. Bonwell, Green Mountain Falls, Colorado 80819, USA] was used after requisite permissions were obtained from the developer. It was downloaded from the VARK home page

Study procedure: During regular working hours, the first year undergraduate medical students were briefed about the study. The questionnaire was then distributed in the form of hard copies to those who consented.

Variables and their evaluation: Students were distributed into one of the following categories: Unimodal-Having only of the V, A, R, or K preferences; Multimodal-Having more than one preference. Multimodal was further classified into Bimodal-Having two preferences; Trimodal-Having three preferences; and Quadrimodal-having 4 preferences. Scores were given accordingly.

Statistical analysis: The data was entered into a Microsoft excel sheet and the score statistically analyzed to determine the percentage of students in each category. Difference between the sexes was analyzed using the Fishers or Chi-square test. All tests were done at 5% significance.

 :: Results Top

Demographic data: A total of 91/100 students consented and completed the questionnaire.

Learning preferences: A total of 79 (86.8%) were multimodal in their learning preference and only 12 students (13.8%) were unimodal [Figure 1]. The highest unimodal preference was K-7.7%, A-3.3%, and R-2.2%. Surprisingly, there were no visual unimodal learners [Figure 2]. [Figure 3] shows the overall distribution of scores of all modalities of learning styles. The commonest learning preference was the bimodal category, of which the highest percentage was seen in the AK (33%) and AR (16.5%) category. The most common trimodal preference was ARK (8.9%). [Figure 4] shows the total individual scores in each category. These are V-371, A-588, R/W-432, and K-581. Auditory and Kinesthetic was the highest preference. Surprisingly, Visual mode had the lowest overall score. [Figure 5] shows the different modalities grouped under unimodal, bimodal, trimodal, and quadrimodal categories. There was no quadrimodal group observed. The commonest learning preference was the bimodal category, among which the commonest being AK, AR, and VK category. There was no difference between the sexes (P > 0.05) [Figure 6].
Figure 1: Shows the preference for unimodal and multimodal learning. Seventy-nine students (86.8%) were multimodal, and only 12 students (13.8%) were unimodal

Click here to view
Figure 2: Shows the different individual unimodal preferences; K-7.7%, A-3.3%, and R-2.2%

Click here to view
Figure 3: Shows the overall distribution of scores of all modalities of learning.The commonest learning preference is AK (33%)

Click here to view
Figure 4: Shows the total individual scores in each category; V-371, A-588, R/W-432, and K-581

Click here to view
Figure 5: Shows the percentage of unimodal, bimodal, trimodal, and quadrimodal categories; the commonest being the bimodal

Click here to view
Figure 6: Shows no significant difference in preference between the sexes

Click here to view

 :: Discussion Top

Neil Fleming in his landmark article 'I'm different; not dumb: Modes of presentation (V.A.R.K.) in the tertiary classroom' says that people learn in different ways using variety of strategies to convert the educational message into their long term memories. There is no single best way to teach, but teachers can diversify their teaching styles to cater to the learning styles of each distinctive student. [9],[10] Awareness of learning styles will help educators identify and solve learning problems among students. [11]

In our present study, 86.8% of students were multimodal in their learning style. A similar study done in the medical University of Colombo by Samarakoon et al. showed that the majority (69.9%) of first year medical students had multimodal learning styles, unimodal being only in 30.1%; among the unimodal learners, the clear majority were auditory learners (50%); among the multimodal learners, 30.1% were bimodal learners with AR(50%) and AK (31.8%) types predominating. [12] As observed by Samarakoon et al., the similarities observed in our students may be attributable to the traditional didactic lecture method in the pre-university education system, where pre-university education is often supplemented with coaching centers and private tuition classes that are often large lecture-based modules with a strong emphasis on the read/write and aural mode of information presentation.

A VARK study by Lujan et al. on medical students in Wayne State University School of Medicine, Michigan showed that majority (63.8%) had multimodal learning preference with only 36.1% having a unimodal preference. [13] Among those with unimodal preferences, 5.4% preferred visual, 4.8% preferred auditory, 7.8% preferred printed words, and 18.1% preferred kinesthetic mode; auditory learners were only a small minority (4.8%). Of the 63.8% of students who preferred multiple modes of information presentation, 24.5% were bimodal, 32.1% were trimodal, and the majority preferred all four modes (quadrimodal, 43.4%). Another study done on medical students by the Department of Medical Education of Erciyes, Turkeyshowed multimodal preference in 63.9% and unimodal in 36.1% of students. [11] Among the unimodal, preferences were V-3.2%, A-7.7%, R-1.9%, and K-23.3%; only 1.9% being auditory learners. Preferred multiple modes were: Bimodal (30.3%), trimodal (20.7%), and quadrimodal (12.9%).Both these above studies demonstrate a clear predominance of kinesthetic learners (18.1% and 23.3% respectively) among unimodal learners. A similar study among first year nursing students in Australia demonstrated a predominance of kinesthetic style of learning. [14] The fundamental difference between learning preferences in our study and other studies in USA, Turkey, and Australia may be the pattern of pre-university education ingrained in our system with a strong emphasis on the A and R/W mode with little emphasis on the visual (V) and kinesthetic(K) mode.

A study done among clinical students in a MalaysianMedical Collegecomprising of a mixed population of Indians, Chinese, and Malayshowed that 44% were mono-modal and 56% were multimodal. [15] The latter comprised of all three subgroups, i.e., quadrimodal, trimodal, and bimodal. In the mono-modal category, all the four preferences were represented with the highest preference for kinesthetic. A study in another Malaysian medical college indicated that 48.6% of undergraduate medical students were multimodal; kinesthetic preference being the highest among the mono-modal group (35%). [16] In contrast, pre-clinical medical students in Saudi Arabia showed multimodal learning preference in 72.6% with a strong aural preference in the mono-modal category. [17] Interestingly, a study among musical students of Thailandshowed 66.1% were multimodal, with aural preference being the overall highest (62.7%). [18]

Samarakoon et al. on studying the learning preferences of postgraduate medical doctors found a dramatic shift where 'Kinesthetic (K)' learning predominates among postgraduates. They attribute this to the increased exposure to 'clinical teaching' where the focus changes from didactic lecture presentations to patient-oriented bedside clinics where one hones his or her practical kinesthetic clinical examination skills. There may also be decreased amount of didactic lecture hours and increased amount of patient-oriented teaching resulting in development of self-learned skills. [12]

All of the above studies show that multiple modalities of information presentation are necessary to effectively cater to student learning preferences. A learning preference is defined as the most 'effective and efficient modality,' in which a learner has a natural preference to 'perceive, process, store, and recall new information.' [19] Awareness of these learning preferences amongst students necessitates a shift from the traditional large-group teacher-centric lecture method to an interactive, small-group student-centric approach incorporating various teaching-learning strategies. Students at our medical school have benefitted tremendously with the use of the e-learning platform, early clinical exposure to patients in wards and surgical theaters during the first year itself, integrated learning program of basic sciences, and increased availability of models and plastinates. Other teaching strategies that could be meaningfully employed include mp3 recordings of lectures, audio recordings of power-point presentations, increased frequency of discussions and seminars, and issuing of lecture handouts. Since students possess a wide diversity in learning styles, teachers should combine different educational strategies to meet the varied learning preferences of students.

 :: References Top

1.Meehan-Andrews TA. Teaching mode efficiency and learning preferences of first year nursing students. Nurse Educ Today 2009;29:24-32.  Back to cited text no. 1
2.Drago WA, Wagner RJ. VARK preferred learning styles and online education. MRN 2004;27:1-13.  Back to cited text no. 2
3.Othman N, Amiruddin MH. International conference on learner diversity. Different perspectives of learning styles from VARK model. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2010;7:652-60.  Back to cited text no. 3
4.Snelgrove SR. Approaches to learning of student nurses. Nurse Educ Today 2004;24:605-14.  Back to cited text no. 4
5.Fleming N. VARK: A guide to learning styles. Available from: [Last accessed on 2013 Oct 20].  Back to cited text no. 5
6.Leite WL, Svinicki M, Shi Y. Attempted validation of scores of the VARK: Learning styles inventory with multitrait-multimethod confirmatory factor analysis models. Educ Psychol Meas 2010;70:323-39.  Back to cited text no. 6
7.Murphy RJ, Gray SA, Straja SR, Bogert MC. Student learning preferences and teaching implications. J Dent Educ 2004;68:859-66.  Back to cited text no. 7
8.Miller P. Learning styles: The multimedia of the mind. Research Report. 2001. [In Press].  Back to cited text no. 8
9.Fleming ND. I′m different; not dumb. Modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiary classroom. In: Zelmer A, editor. Research and Development in Higher Education, Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Higher Education and Research Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA). Vol. 18. Higher Education Research and Development;1995. p. 308-13.  Back to cited text no. 9
10.Becker K, Kehoe J, Tennent B. Impact of personalised learning styles on online delivery and assessment. CWIS 2007;24:105-19.  Back to cited text no. 10
11.Baykan Z, Naçar M. Learning styles of first-year medical students attending Erciyes University in Kayseri Turkey. Adv Physiol Educ 2007;31:158-60.  Back to cited text no. 11
12.Samarakoon L, Fernando T, Rodrigo C. Learning styles and approaches to learning among medical undergraduates and postgraduates. BMC Med Educ 2013;13:42.  Back to cited text no. 12
13.Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE. First-year medical students prefer multiple learningstyles. Adv Physiol Educ 2006;30:13-6.  Back to cited text no. 13
14.D′Amore A, James S, Mitchell EK.Learning styles of first-yearundergraduate nursing and midwifery students: A cross-sectional surveyutilising the Kolb Learning Style Inventory. Nurse Educ Today 2012;32:506-15.  Back to cited text no. 14
15.Sinha NK, Bhardwaj A, Singh S, Abas AL. Learning preferences of clinical students: A study in a Malaysian medical college. Int J Med Public Health 2013;3:60-3.  Back to cited text no. 15
  Medknow Journal  
16.Kumar LR, Voralu K, Pani SP, Sethuraman KR. Predominant learning styles adopted by AIMST University students in Malaysia. Availablefrom: [Last accessed on 2012 Jun17].  Back to cited text no. 16
17.Nuzhat A, Salem RO, Quadri MS, Al-Hamdan N. Learning style preferences of medical students: A single-institute experience from Saudi Arabia. Int J Med Educ 2011;2:70-3.  Back to cited text no. 17
18.Tanwinit A, Sittiprapaporn W. Learning styles of undergraduate musical students attending music college in Thailand. Available from: http://musica. [Last cited on 2012 May 12].  Back to cited text no. 18
19.Rourke BP, Ahmad SA, Collins DW, Hayman-AbelloBA,Hayman-Abello SE,WarrinerEM.C hild clinical/pediatric neuropsychology: Some recent advances. Annu Rev Psychol 2002;53:309-39.  Back to cited text no. 19


  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6]

This article has been cited by
1 A Hands-On Surgical Event to Improve Medical Student Operating Room Confidence
Sarah E. Adkins, Heather M. Minchew, Katelyn Sanner Dixon, Lynn Chollet Hinton, Lyndsey J. Kilgore, German Berbel
Journal of Surgical Research. 2023; 290: 156
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Diagrams, images and conceptual maps in nursing education
Christine Durmis, Daniel A. Wilkenfeld
Nursing Philosophy. 2023;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 The Evolution of Science Education: You Don’t Know? YouTube It
Jose M. Barlis, Josefin D. Fajardo, Benjie M. Manila
SAGE Open. 2023; 13(2): 2158244023
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 The learning preferences of aspiring orthopaedic surgeons in the UK
Kanatheepan Shanmuganathan, Kaifeng Liang, Vikramman Vignaraja, Richard Galloway, Charmilie Chandrakumar
British Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2023; 84(2): 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
Üstün Türker, Özgür Bostanci
Problems of Education in the 21st Century. 2023; 81(1): 144
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 Learning Styles and Its Role in the Attainment of Learning Outcomes
AR Khavya
SBV Journal of Basic, Clinical and Applied Health Science. 2022; 6(1): 21
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
7 Bloom’s taxonomy for the digital age student in a rural African context
Morakinyo Akintolu, Ntandokamezi Dlamini, Moeketsi Letseka
EUREKA: Social and Humanities. 2022; (6): 39
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
8 Preferred Learning Styles of Dental Students in Madinah, Saudi Arabia: Bridging the Gender Gap
Danya Hashem
Advances in Medical Education and Practice. 2022; Volume 13: 275
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
9 Comparison of knowledge acquisition and retention following traditional didactic vs. flipped classroom education utilizing a standardized national curriculum: a randomized controlled trial
Megan M. Gray, Rita Dadiz, Susan Izatt, Maria Gillam-Krakauer, Melissa M. Carbajal, Lindsay C. Johnston, Allison Payne, Margarita M. Vasquez, Elizabeth M. Bonachea, Heidi Karpen, Alison J. Falck, Patricia R. Chess, Matthew Huber, Heather French
Journal of Perinatology. 2022;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
10 A structured multimodal teaching approach enhancing musculoskeletal physical examination skills among undergraduate medical students
Abdulaziz Z. Alomar
Medical Education Online. 2022; 27(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
11 The analysis of student kinesthetic learning activity on the materials of Compton and photoelectric effects
S Saehana, I K Werdhiana, N S Safitri, O Saputra, N Safira
Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2021; 2126(1): 012015
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
12 Student perspectives of various learning approaches used in an undergraduate food science and technology subject
Wee Sim Choo
Journal of Food Science Education. 2021;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
13 ‘Citizen identification’: online learning supports highly accurate species identification for insect-focussed citizen science
Jessica R. Perry, Seirian Sumner, Cris Thompson, Adam G. Hart
Insect Conservation and Diversity. 2021; 14(6): 862
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
14 International student nurses' use of social media for learning: A cross sectional survey
Xabi Cathala, Oscar Noel Ocho, Paul Nicholas Watts, Calvin Moorley
Nurse Education Today. 2021; 107: 105160
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
15 Types of Learners
Robert J. Boland, Hermioni L. Amonoo
Psychiatric Clinics of North America. 2021; 44(2): 141
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
16 Emergency remote learning in anatomy during the COVID-19 pandemic: A study evaluating academic factors contributing to anxiety among first year medical students
Supraja Srivastava, Jenny Jacob, Aby S. Charles, Priyanka Daniel, John K. Mathew, Pauline Shanthi, Kiran Devamani, Gowri Mahasampath, Suganthy Rabi
Medical Journal Armed Forces India. 2021; 77: S90
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
17 Generation Z undergraduate students’ resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study
Wei How Darryl Ang, Shefaly Shorey, Violeta Lopez, Han Shi Jocelyn Chew, Ying Lau
Current Psychology. 2021;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
18 Investigating the impact of shopper personality on behaviour in immersive Virtual Reality store environments
Alexander Schnack, Malcolm J. Wright, Jonathan Elms
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2021; 61: 102581
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
19 Changes in the learning styles and approaches of students following incorporation of drawing during cadaveric dissection
Joydeep Dutta Chaudhuri
Clinical Anatomy. 2021; 34(3): 437
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
20 Potentials and Limitations of Educational Videos on YouTube for Science Communication
Sarah Kohler, Tabea Clara Dietrich
Frontiers in Communication. 2021; 6
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
21 Adecuación de recursos instruccionales en ciencias a las preferencias sensoriales del alumnado: un estudio exploratorio en enseñanza secundaria
Enric Ortega Torres, Joan Josep Solaz-Portolés, Vicente Sanjosé López
Revista Complutense de Educación. 2020; 31(4): 473
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
22 Use of Learning Style Frameworks in Health Science Education
Lindsey Childs-Kean, Mary Edwards, Mary Douglass Smith
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 2020; 84(7): ajpe7885
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
23 Leveraging Providers’ Preferences to Customize Instructional Content in Information and Communications Technology–Based Training Interventions: Retrospective Analysis of a Mobile Phone–Based Intervention in India
Hanu Tyagi, Manisha Sabharwal, Nishi Dixit, Arnab Pal, Sarang Deo
JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 2020; 8(3): e15998
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
24 A Multimedia Educational Module for Teaching Early Medical Neuroanatomy
Matthew C. Welch, Jonathan Yu, M. Benjamin Larkin, Erin K. Graves, David Mears
MedEdPORTAL. 2020;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
25 VARK Learning Style Classification Using Decision Tree with Physiological Signals
Lawal Ibrahim Faruk Dutsinma, Punnarumol Temdee
Wireless Personal Communications. 2020; 115(4): 2875
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
26 Integrating iPads into Team-Based Learning in the Pediatrics Clerkship: Do They Provide Any Value?
Maribeth B Chitkara, Richard Pongvitayapanu, Wei-Hsin Lu
Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development. 2020; 7: 2382120520
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
27 Impact of Discipline-Based vs. Interdisciplinary Orthodontic Courses on Dental Students’ Performance
R. Burcu Nur Yilmaz, Didem Nalbantgil, Fulya Ozdemir
Journal of Dental Education. 2019; 83(1): 64
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
28 How do Emergency Medicine Specialists Learn Best?
Tip Egitimi Dünyasi. 2018; 17(53): 41
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
29 Engaging Undergraduate Nursing Students With Barcode Scanning in an Oncology Course
Karen Aul, Lauren Johnston
Journal of Nursing Education. 2018; 57(7): 451
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
30 Nursing and midwifery students' perception of learning enablers and gains in the first semester of their BSc programmes: A cross sectional study
Catherine Redmond, Carmel Davies, Phil Halligan, Regina Joye, Lorraine Carroll, Timothy Frawley
Nurse Education Today. 2018; 65: 242
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
31 Association between learning style preferences and anatomy assessment outcomes in graduate-entry and undergraduate medical students
Siobhain M. OæMahony,Amgad Sbayeh,Mary Horgan,Siun OæFlynn,Colm M.P. OæTuathaigh
Anatomical Sciences Education. 2016; : n/a
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
32 VARK learning preferences and mobile anatomy software application use in pre-clinical chiropractic students
Amanda J. Meyer,Norman J. Stomski,Stanley I. Innes,Anthony J. Armson
Anatomical Sciences Education. 2015; : n/a
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
33 Learning style versus time spent studying and career choice: Which is associated with success in a combined undergraduate anatomy and physiology course?
Gary J. Farkas,Ewa Mazurek,Jane R. Marone
Anatomical Sciences Education. 2015; : n/a
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
34 An Analysis on the Relation of Elementary Studentsæ VARK Styles and Scientific Communication Skills
Ji-Hoon Ha,Youngjoon Shin
Elementary Science Education. 2014; 33(4): 724
[Pubmed] | [DOI]


Print this article  Email this article
Online since 12th February '04
© 2004 - Journal of Postgraduate Medicine
Official Publication of the Staff Society of the Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, India
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow